This is what we are told is Europe's "enlightened, compassionate justice" that we should adopt here.

I'd like to hear any of our liberal friends defend this sentence. I have a feeling they'll be heading for the hills instead.

Well, the US murder rate is more than 5 times higher than Germany, so those folks must be doing some things right (or we must be doing some things wrong). Am I wrong to believe you, Bill, share my interest in having the US murder rate be as low as it is in Germany?

Given their success when it comes to keeping murders very rare, perhaps we ought to give "enlightened compassionate justice" more of a try?

Douglas,

Doing "something right" is irrelevant and a red herring unless you are claiming that 14 year sentences for burning pregnant women alive is what is "right"about the German criminal justice system.

Is that what you are claiming? Is this 14 year sentence indicative of why their murder rate is lower?

Tarls, this is a typical Doug debating tactic. Of course, the sentence is indefensible, and Doug cannot say that isn't. (Although I shouldn't be so sure--after all, someone who likens drug dealers to freedom fighters doesn't have much shame.) Over at SL & P, Doug actually posited that the US takes away freedom from a higher percentage of its population than anywhere else. When called on it, he said that at least in places like North Korea people get to live their lives.

Tarls: Bill frequently says in this space that we should use crime rates (and especially murder rates) to assess a criminal justice system rather than looking at the rates/duration of imprisonment terms. In addition, Bill not long ago also said "no sensible person can deny that sentencing should, in fact, be based on evidence -- that is, we need to look honestly at what's happening in the world and make our decisions in light of what we see."

Largely agreeing with these statements by Bill, I thought it worth noting that, based on the latest statistics I could find, the US murder rate is more than 5 times higher than Germany. That evidence does not mean I think 14 years is the "right" sentence in this case. (Indeed, one of the many reasons I share Bill's affinity for looking at crime rates is because I often have little sense of what the "right" sentence is for any crime without having a sense of its impact on future crimes.) But anyone eager to assail Germany for how it sentences in a case like this has to confront the reality that, as I said, the German legal system and/or its broader society "must be doing some things right."

Ultimately, I wonder if and worry that rigid gun control --- which is a political non-starter in the US --- best explains the impressive low European murder rate.

Finally, I find amusing that federalist, who makes a habit of distorting what I say and then repeating this distortion in other settings, is calling the recitation of facts that Bill often stresses to be a "debating tactic." Facts, federalist, are not a tactic. And a fact is that it seems the US incarcerates more people than any other nation, and that Germany has a much lower murder rate. You are free to try to spin these facts however you see fit, but mentioning these facts is not a tactic (though complaining about their mention surely is).

Finally, I will ask the question I asked Bill of both Tarls and federalist: do you share my interest in having the US murder rate be as low as it is in Germany?

Douglas stated: "Tarls: Bill frequently says in this space that we should use crime rates (and especially murder rates) to assess a criminal justice system rather than looking at the rates/duration of imprisonment terms. In addition, Bill not long ago also said "no sensible person can deny that sentencing should, in fact, be based on evidence -- that is, we need to look honestly at what's happening in the world and make our decisions in light of what we see.""

I think you are a little out of context here. I suspect what Bill is saying is 1) Look at the impact of our decisions within OUR criminal justice system, NOT to just blindly compare two completely different systems that have very different demographics and causes of crime.

You stated: "Largely agreeing with these statements by Bill, I thought it worth noting that, based on the latest statistics I could find, the US murder rate is more than 5 times higher than Germany."

Which has far less to do with their incarceration model than the demographics within the country. For example, 80% of our crime is caused by feral children in our urban centers. A 16 year old gangbanger is not committing crime because our CJS is not progressive enough. He is committing crime because he has not been taught anything near the Golden Rule, morality, work ethic, etc.

Germany historically does not have the same problem, although they are currently trying to import it.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423

You stated: " That evidence does not mean I think 14 years is the "right" sentence in this case."

Way to bury your admission that your original comment was nonsense.

You stated: "(Indeed, one of the many reasons I share Bill's affinity for looking at crime rates is because I often have little sense of what the "right" sentence is for any crime without having a sense of its impact on future crimes.)"

If you cannot decide that 14 years is not the "right sentence" for this crime, your moral compass is irretrievably broken.

You stated: "Ultimately, I wonder if and worry that rigid gun control --- which is a political non-starter in the US --- best explains the impressive low European murder rate."

Take away the feral urban child murders and the rest of gun toting American murder rate is pretty darn close to Europe.

Like any short-sided academic, you continue to look for the needle in the haystack when the real problem is the size of a bulldozer sitting in your front yard.

Unfortunately, you pretend it is not there.

Douglas stated: "Finally, I will ask the question I asked Bill of both Tarls and federalist: do you share my interest in having the US murder rate be as low as it is in Germany?"

Of course I do, but I suspect that you do not. I know your colleagues do not. Virtuous citizens do not pay fat retainers!

I will say again in response to all these comments, I do not have so much confidence concerning what is a right or a wrong or a just or an injust sentence in this case or any other. I personally do not have the deontological beliefs that others seem to have about the "right" punishment in a case like this, and as a result I cannot embrace either Kantian claims that the death penalty is the right punishment is every murder case or the Pope's claims that it is the wrong punishment in every case. Indeed, it is because I respect the wisdom of both Kant and the Pope --- I respect the "moral compass" of both --- that I find it so hard to feel confident when anyone asserts that they know with absolute certainty what the right or wrong sentence is in any particular case.

As a result of this deontological uncertainty, and my own commitment to consequentialism, I try to look at measurable consequences when assessing individual and system-wide punishment schemes. And the measurable consequences in Germany seem pretty good (as in Japan as well). I fully recognize the claim by Tarls and others that the US has unique challenges to getting its crime rate down, and it may just be the case that Americans as a whole are too "feral" to benefit from a more compassionate justice system. But that conclusion would seem to suggest that Americans as a whole are terrible humans who must be treated like animals. As murders surge anew and heroin addictions rise, I may have to accept the proposition that Americans are too vile to allow us to have a more compassionate justice system, but I continue to want to resist the depressing possibility that we have the world's worst citizens given that I believe we have the world's best political system.

Douglas stated: " I do not have so much confidence concerning what is a right or a wrong or a just or an injust sentence in this case or any other. I personally do not have the deontological beliefs that others seem to have about the "right" punishment in a case like this..."

You do not need any special insight or ethical lens to see gross cruelty, Douglas. If everyone followed your stated position, we could have no criminal justice system.

Take this new case from where I grew up back in 315.

http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/02/baby_maddox_was_killed_body_burned_and_hidden_before_father_went_into_hiding_sou.html

A father killed his 21 month old daughter because of the attention she got from his wife when the little girl had cancer (she beat it). He was jealous. Killed, burned, and threw her in a creek.

You cannot say that a 6 month term in county lockup would be a travesty?" Seriously? It is no wonder that this country is about to elect a narcissist or a felon. We are so worried about "judging" that we have paralyzed ourselves.

Doug stated: "I fully recognize the claim by Tarls and others that the US has unique challenges to getting its crime rate down, and it may just be the case that Americans as a whole are too "feral" to benefit from a more compassionate justice system."

Nice try, Doug.

I never said, "Americans as a whole". I pointed to gang riddled inner cities. It is gang activity in our inner cities that creates 80% of our crime.

Please, stay with me and use my actual statements, not straw men.

You stated: "But that conclusion would seem to suggest that Americans as a whole are terrible humans who must be treated like animals. As murders surge anew and heroin addictions rise, I may have to accept the proposition that Americans are too vile to allow us to have a more compassionate justice system, but I continue to want to resist the depressing possibility that we have the world's worst citizens given that I believe we have the world's best political system."

Based on the above straw man.

You seem to be eschewing the content of my words in order to concentrate on a perceived process violation, that I used the word "feral." How else would you describe the ongoing slaughter in say, Chicago?

"West Garfield Park, population 18,000, had 21 murders last year, which makes for a homicide rate of 116 per 100,000 people. The world’s leader in murders, Honduras, has a homicide rate of 90, according to the United Nations.

Following West Garfield Park in lethality was West Englewood and its 73.3 murder rate, more than second-place Venezuela with its 53.7 rate. Chicago’s Chatham (58) beats Belize (44.7); Englewood (52.6) outdoes El Salvador (41.2); South Chicago (48) tops Guatemala (39.9). The United States as a whole has 4.5 murders per 100,000."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/08/america-s-mass-shooting-capital-is-chicago.html

I can certainly identify "gross cruelty," Tarls, and I can/will say with confidence that a "6 month term in county lockup" for a horrific murder without any mitigating circumstance would be wrong. But that is not he case in the main post, nor am I aware of any modern case in which a person convicted of a horrific murder --- in the US or elsewhere in the world --- got only a six month sentence. So it seem to me you are the one creating straw cases here. (After watching the new OJ docu-drama on FX recently, it bear recalling all-too-common injustice of the many murders that never lead to any formal punishments at all.)

As for the 14-year prison sentence referenced in the main post, it seems that the German judge thought that was the "right" sentence in that case, whereas I surmise you or Bill or Kent might think only a death sentence would be "right" sentence in that case. All I meant to say was that, based on the limited information given and my own disaffinity for deontological punishment claims, I have a hard time feeling confident saying that the German judge was obviously "wrong" here and that a death sentence is obviously "right."

As for my reference to America generally, it came from the fact that the main post seemed to be discussing the punishment system of Germany as a whole and Bill's follow-up seemed to be talking about the American punishment system as a whole.

I quoted your use of the word "feral" because it seems to effectively reflect your view, Tarls, that some Americans are wild animals and our criminal laws must reflect that reality. But I resist calling any group of people wild animals, even if their violent behavior is both sad and self-destructive.

And, perhaps more to the point, the stats you now highlight about murder rates and certain nations suggest that dysfunctional governments (perhaps coupled with weak gun laws) contribute to violent behaviors that prove sad and self-destructive.

KEY FINAL POINT: I am not trying to win an argument here, but rather seek to encourage deeper and more dynamic reflection on crime and punishment in light of crime data. You may enjoy attacking what I say more than engaging in such reflection, but I will still through my own comment try to encourage such reflection despite the attacks.

Doug stated: "I can certainly identify "gross cruelty," Tarls, and I can/will say with confidence that a "6 month term in county lockup" for a horrific murder without any mitigating circumstance would be wrong."

But that is NOT what you said earlier. You stated (my emphasis): "I will say again in response to all these comments, I do not have so much confidence concerning what is a right or a wrong or a just or an injust sentence IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER."

You stated: "But that is not he case in the main post, nor am I aware of any modern case in which a person convicted of a horrific murder --- in the US or elsewhere in the world --- got only a six month sentence. So it seem to me you are the one creating straw cases here."

No so. You made a ridiculous statement that you could never make a decision whether a sentence was just or not IN ANY CASE. It was not a "straw case", it was a dismantling of your theory. Now, if you can make a definitive statement that 6 months is an unjust sentence, why not 14 years for a pregnant woman burned alive?

You stated: " All I meant to say was that, based on the limited information given and my own disaffinity for deontological punishment claims, I have a hard time feeling confident saying that the German judge was obviously "wrong" here and that a death sentence is obviously "right.""

But that is NOT what you said, nor did anyone make the claim that it should be DP. Another epic straw man from you.

You stated: "As for my reference to America generally, it came from the fact that the main post seemed to be discussing the punishment system of Germany as a whole and Bill's follow-up seemed to be talking about the American punishment system as a whole."

Nope. Read the context. I spoke of how 80% of crime comes from feral children running amok in gangs and YOU, and you only, brought it upon yourself to stain the entire country with the problem. Here is the relevant part of the exchange:

Me: " For example, 80% of our crime is caused by feral children in our urban centers. A 16 year old gangbanger is not committing crime because our CJS is not progressive enough. He is committing crime because he has not been taught anything near the Golden Rule, morality, work ethic, etc."

You: ""I fully recognize the claim by Tarls and others that the US has unique challenges to getting its crime rate down, and it may just be the case that Americans as a whole are too "feral" to benefit from a more compassionate justice system."

The "unique" challenges are gangs who are "feral", yet you decided to portray it as "Americans as a whole" as feral.

You stated: "I quoted your use of the word "feral" because it seems to effectively reflect your view, Tarls, that some Americans are wild animals and our criminal laws must reflect that reality. But I resist calling any group of people wild animals, even if their violent behavior is both sad and self-destructive."

Sure. Killing, burning, and throwing your 21 month old daughter in a creek because she got too much attention for her cancer is "self-destructive" on some level, but this is where we differ. I am more worried about the "destructive" force on her, the rest of her family, and society as a whole while your main concern is that the guy is destroying HIMSELF. He made that choice to "self-destruct." She had no such choice.

IS there a BETTER word than feral to describe such behavior (or what happens in gang areas daily)? What is it?

You stated: "And, perhaps more to the point, the stats you now highlight about murder rates and certain nations suggest that dysfunctional governments (perhaps coupled with weak gun laws) contribute to violent behaviors that prove sad and self-destructive."

Yep, progressive city government sucks. Spending a couple of generations telling people that you should do "what feels good now" leads to this. Telling people that you do not need a man, because government will be there to bail you out, leads to this.

And then people like you put forth your crocodile tears and ask, "Where did it all go wrong?" Oh, yeah! Guns! Do us, and academia, a favor, Doug. Study the murder rate of NRA members in this country compared to gang members or even non-gun owners. This will never happen because you would rather have the gun cudgel/excuse than the actual statistics for your "evidence-based" solutions.

You stated: "KEY FINAL POINT: I am not trying to win an argument here,..."

Of course you are. That is why your argument keeps changing (See top of post).

Also, Tarls, while we are sharing local homicide stories, I would like to hear your views on the "right" sentence for Tara Lambert of Ohio based on her conviction of "first-degree felony charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder." Here is the newspaper account of her crime and trial:

"Following a two-day trial in January, a jury deliberated just 45 minutes before convicting Lambert, a 33-year-old former model, of hiring someone to kill Kellie Cooke, the mother of her two teenage stepdaughters."

You can see what the state judge thought was the "right" sentence by clicking through: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/02/24/Pickaway-County-murder-for-hire-sentence.html

"Finally, I find amusing that federalist, who makes a habit of distorting what I say and then repeating this distortion in other settings, is calling the recitation of facts that Bill often stresses to be a "debating tactic." Facts, federalist, are not a tactic. And a fact is that it seems the US incarcerates more people than any other nation, and that Germany has a much lower murder rate. You are free to try to spin these facts however you see fit, but mentioning these facts is not a tactic (though complaining about their mention surely is)."

Um, how did I distort what you said? You posited that the "land of the free" (read the US) forcefully took away a higher percentage of its' citizens' freedom than any other place. I noted that the description sounded more like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Doug's response: "absent a criminal prosecution/incarcertation, even people deprived of some important freedoms in other nations still can freely make basic decisions about how to structure their lives on given day --- e.g., when/what to eat, whom to talk and make plans with, etc. Incarcerated persons are forefully and forcibly deprived of even these basic freedoms.)"

As for your debating techniques--yes, you served up facts--but they were pretty much besides the point . . . . the classic non-defense defense.

I suppose I should be flattered, Tarls and federalist, that you work so hard and are so eager to nitpick some of my word choices deep into comment threads. But I genuinely wish you would, at least every so often, try to hold Bill to similar wordsmithing standards when he, for example, uses the term "mass" to describe Prez Obama's clemency work or when, even in this thread, he first frets about European justice systems but then later suggests we ought not be "fretting about the Germans (softer) or the Japanese (harder)."

One reason I try to comment regularly here is because Bill --- sometimes aided by you and others --- has generally succeeded in bullying away those who sometime question or subject to scrutiny some of his claims. Especially disconcerting to me is when Bill, after aggressively going after those who disagree with him and making this a difficult setting for taking him on in any way, starts a comment thread by suggesting that "our liberal friends ... [will] be heading for the hills instead" of engaging in this forum. When Bill seems to crow about his success at making this an unpleasant forum for people to take him on, I sometimes feel compelled (perhaps foolishly?) to engage in an effort to show that not everyone who disagrees with him will be bullied away.

In the end, what I find especially frustrating, especially in a forum like a blog comment thread, is that picayune word use rather than big ideas become the focal point for engagement. My comments in this thread have all been efforts to raise big ideas and to explain the way I engage those big ideas --- e.g., if it is to be judged by homicide rates, European justice is worth respecting; I struggle to assess/criticize whether a particular sentence given by a judge is obviously a "right" or "wrong" sentence because I do not fully feel a deontological faith/confidence that others clearly have; perhaps gun availability more than justice systems account for inter-nation difference in homicide rates; perhaps American society cannot afford to embrace the types of justice systems that seem consequentially effective in Europe of late, etc.

To Tarls credit (and why I tend to enjoy engaging with him more than some others), his responses often took up these big ideas and provided other facts/factors that usefully influence my thinking (e.g., by talking about demographics, by comparing some urban homicide rates to those of other nations). But, disconcertingly, this discourse sometimes comes packaged with swipes at lawyers and/or academics that seem only likely to --- and may be intended to --- raise the heat rather than the light in this discourse.

I will continue to engage here, in part because I think we all benefit from the check-and-balances that comes from hearing from smart people who do not always agree with you. Indeed, I have spen more time in C&C comment threads since many here (save federalist) seem disinclined to engage at all on my blog. But I sincerely hope we can and will try to keep as much of the discussion as possible on the ideas and real facts/cases rather than semantics and hypos.

And on the topic of ideas and real facts/cases, I remain eager to hear from all of you about what you could say about the "right" or "wrong" sentence in the recent Ohio case I flagged.

Doug stated: "I suppose I should be flattered, Tarls and federalist, that you work so hard and are so eager to nitpick some of my word choices deep into comment threads."

With all due respect, you saying that you can never judge a sentence for a crime as too light is not a "nitpick" or an overbearing desire to criticize "picayune word use." It highlights an enormous difference in our outlook on the CJS, the topic of this blog. I am not going to apologize for putting you into a position where you were forced to retract your words.

Doug stated: "But I genuinely wish you would, at least every so often, try to hold Bill to similar wordsmithing standards when he, for example, uses the term "mass" to describe Prez Obama's clemency work or when, even in this thread, he first frets about European justice systems but then later suggests we ought not be "fretting about the Germans (softer) or the Japanese (harder).""

Your tu quoque aside, I believe your interpretation of Bill on this thread is a little out of context. The last thing I would ever do is presume to speak for him (he can do it about 100 times better than I) but I saw his main point to be that this is a question of justice first. Is 14 years for the brutal burning and murder of a pregnant woman "justice?" At least he confronted the question. You dodged it and put up a smokescreen of data about Germany's crime rates compared to ours.

Doug stated: "One reason I try to comment regularly here is because Bill --- sometimes aided by you and others --- has generally succeeded in bullying away those who sometime question or subject to scrutiny some of his claims. Especially disconcerting to me is when Bill, after aggressively going after those who disagree with him and making this a difficult setting for taking him on in any way, starts a comment thread by suggesting that "our liberal friends ... [will] be heading for the hills instead" of engaging in this forum. When Bill seems to crow about his success at making this an unpleasant forum for people to take him on, I sometimes feel compelled (perhaps foolishly?) to engage in an effort to show that not everyone who disagrees with him will be bullied away."

It seems to me that the commenter traffic to this blog has gone up considerably from where I remember it when I first came.

Doug stated: "But, disconcertingly, this discourse sometimes comes packaged with swipes at lawyers and/or academics that seem only likely to --- and may be intended to --- raise the heat rather than the light in this discourse."

My comments reflect my observations, Doug. I "swipe" at lawyers (specifically defense and tort attorneys) because I see much more dedication put forth to personal enrichment than any sense of justice. I believe in a robust defense but not falsely (and knowingly) accusing an innocent man of a crime you know your client did. I also have very little patience for "reforms" that will do little more than enrich tort lawyers. My frustration with academics comes from its desire to seek confirmation instead of truth. As I said in a previous post, no one will research the murder rate of NRA members compared to the general public, not because it is not worthwhile, but because the results would likely contradict their worldview. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Doug stated: "I will continue to engage here, in part because I think we all benefit from the check-and-balances that comes from hearing from smart people who do not always agree with you. Indeed, I have spen more time in C&C comment threads since many here (save federalist) seem disinclined to engage at all on my blog."

The reason that most conservative posters left your blog was because it was a free for all, with no brake. The reason I am somewhat taken aback by your comments is the irony of you complaining about supposed "attacks" here, while your stated position on your blog is "there are no rules" including saying that commenters who disagree remind one of "Hitler." That is just a start. If I said you looked/reminded me of Hitler, I would expect a reprimand from Bill and/or Kent. Just so you know, I do lurk there, have even emailed you articles that you posted, and find your blog informative. Unfortunately, the comment section is a mess.

Doug stated: "And on the topic of ideas and real facts/cases, I remain eager to hear from all of you about what you could say about the "right" or "wrong" sentence in the recent Ohio case I flagged."

Without knowing the details of Ohio law, I find the sentence far too low. I have never understood the moral argument for lower sentences if an attempt to murder failed (bonus points for being bad at it?) and this case is no different.

One might point out the mitigating factors of her upbringing but the time for mercy was in her childhood. Unfortunately, she is NOW a broken person who is unlikely to ever be put back together again. The two main responsibilities of the CJS is to 1) provide justice; and 2) keep the rest of us safe. No "reform" of the system will ever be nearly as effective as being a country that doesn't break people in the first place. Parents who parent and teach virtues. Prisons cannot teach these things.

I appreciate these comments, Tarls, and I know you do read my blog and I appreciate it. You also comment there sometimes, which I appreciate, too. (I also appreciate federalist engaging there, too.)

Please know I am not complaining about attacks, just encouraging the conversation in this space (where I often write way too fast and cannot edit) to be about idea, not word choice. When I was trying to make clear is my own inability to be confident that another (presumably thoughtful) judgment about "justice" is obviously wrong. And I would like to know more about where your feelings of "justice" come from and how/why/whether you think judges can and should let their own feelings about justice shape their sentencing decisions.

I presume the German judge in the main case and the Ohio judge in the case I mention thought they were providing some sense of justice. You (and Bill) seem to think they are obviously wrong. How do I decide when I do not have a feeling as to these nuances?

(And there is the added issue, created by a lot of use of brutal imprisonment, that confinement as a animal can often further break people and make them even more "feral." Your last sentences reveals that you share my sense that we should not expect prison to make people better, and I wonder if you worry that they may make people worse and thus make it harder to "keep the rest of us safe."

N.B.: I share much of your frustration with defense lawyers and academics, but I see no real value in airing those complaints in this setting unless you think they serve as helpful ways to advance the discussion. And, for the record, I know MANY former US Attorneys, corrections officials and big-firm lawyers who put forth much more energy to achieve "personal enrichment than any sense of justice." But I still do not see what is really achieved in our discussions by swiping at the failings of some members of certain professions.

Doug, I still don't think I distorted what you said. And you want to talk "big picture"? Well, then, what about the freedom of women to walk the streets of New York?

Or how about this--you look at "people in cages"---but (putting aside silly over criminalization like arresting people for filming cops or bad prosecutors or what have you) those people generally deserved at least some incarceration--compare that to the plight of Copts in Egypt. And when you look at their plight--just today some teens were sentenced to serious time for blasphemy--think then about what CU involved--criminal sanction for speech. You pooh-poohed that issue, but chirped on and on about people in cages and Weldon Angelos. From this vantage point, sure looks like your incantation of "freedom" is oh so much sloganeering.

federalist, you keep seeming to miss the import and significance of the fact that, in order to make the case that the US seems pretty good on freedom, you are bringing up examples like North Korea and Sauda Arabia and Egypt. I agree that, all things considered, the US and its citizens are doing better on freedom than these repressive regimes.

But, because I consider human freedom to be a preeminent value, I am not content for the US to be the best among the world's worst nations on freedom. I want the US to be the best of the best on human freedom, the best in the world, the best in human history, and both over-criminalization and mass incarceration cuts deeply against that goal (and, so too, would anyone being criminally prosecuted for any political speech, ergo my support for CU).

I incant my concern for human freedom because I care a lot about human freedom, and this is not about my interest in slogans but my interest in having the US be the best it can be on the value I care most about. I surmise from Tarls and maybe also you and Bill that concerns about "providing justice" is much more important than preserving freedom when it comes to deciding how big and tough government criminal justice systems should be. That is fine, but I hope you all realize that government size and power is likely to keep growing and growing (and over-criminalization getting worse and worse) when everyone defends government doing whatever it leaders at any time think are sufficient to serve "justice." (Indeed, CU was needed to prevent both Rs and Ds seeking to advance election "justice" through criminal restraints on speech.)

Flabby thinking, federalist, was when you comically suggested that the drug war somehow makes parents more "free" from having to worry when they send their kids to school. I am now waiting for you to claim that alcohol Prohibition made us all more "free" from having to worry about spilling red wine on tablecloths.

Also flabby is your persistent desire to believe that concerns about excessive use of criminal prohibitions and incarceration in the US is about "sentimentality" rather than about the ways modern criminal government powers/force grows and grows and grows in modern times and in so growing impinges on individual freedoms in many ways. Are you really unable to see the connection between a large police force that, after conducting a sting on Weldon Angelos and giving him 50+ years in prison for weed deals, then readily moves on to "jackboot raids on Gibson Guitars"?

Speaking of flabby, you use terms like "malum in se hardcore crimes" and "drug dealers" and "traditional type crimes" as if that clarifies matters when it just adds fatty terms to an issue that demands crispness. Does downloading child porn on an iPad qualify as a "malum in se hardcore crime" (or a "traditional" crime)? Is selling marijuana from a state-licensed dispensary the kind of federal "drug dealing" you think merits harsh punishment? How about drunk driving? Buying a gun without a license? Going hunting after a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence years earlier (the issue in Voisine before SCOTUS next week)?

Like you, I hope a future AG Chris Christie does not conduct jackboot raids on Gibson Guitars, but I also do not want him conducting such raids of marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, Oregon and Washington or of every home in which an ISP reports a pattern of google searches using the word Lolitta or of every shooting range to make sure nobody there ever has been in trouble in their distant past. And if you think an ever-growing government police/prosecutor force will always make sound decisions about others' choices, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being "nice" or "sentimental" to Wendell Callahan or even Weldon Angelos, it has everything to do with the reality --- demonstrated over the last 40 years in the US --- that both the left and the right now loves growing government particularly in the criminal justice arena AND that it has proven persistently hard to "undo" that growth. Look, for example, at the problems posed in just trying to get some modern mens rea reform passed or to tweak the extreme crack sentences. In recent decades government growth in this space has been a one-way ratchet, and if you cannot understand how this can be a real threat to human freedoms, your thinking is particularly flabby with respect to the lessons of both past and modern history.

Come on Doug---you said something ill-advised and got called out. Lick your wounds and fight another day.

Given all the heroin ODs in this country (which are at record levels in part because Obama has zero interest in securing the border), you discount the nagging worry of many parents (which does impact freedom).

I get that too much government can manifest itself in an overly high incarceration rate--but there's much more that needs to be proved. The prisons aren't full of misdemeanants who subsequently used a hunting rifle. (By the way, you'll recall my criticism of a prosecution in Virginia.)

I'm done.

I am also done, federalist, though I will close with a bit of levity: if the "nagging worry of parents truly counts as something that deprives freedom, then I suppose as the father of two teenage girls I am much less free that I aspire to be --- and "my people," the jews, really are still likely the least free people because we are awfully good at both nagging and worrying. ;-)